Hi Andrew, > It would be even better if you could implement DCCP with UDP encap with > the baseline UDP networking facilities of Java. A whole bunch of > Android developers would grab that. Oh, that's interesting. Maybe if I can find some time I'll look at porting dccp-tp to Android. Tom P. > -----Original Message----- > From: dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx [mailto:dccp-bounces@xxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of > Andrew Lentvorski > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:19 AM > To: Lars Eggert > Cc: DCCP working group; TSV Area; tsvwg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: UDP encaps for SCTP and SCCP > > On 5/18/10 12:37 AM, Lars Eggert wrote: > > Hi, > > > > the discussion has touched on lots of things related to UDP encaps, but > I haven't seen anything I'd call consensus on the question below. I'd > therefore like to ask folks to specifically state which option they > support: > > > > (1) do one SCTP-specific and one DCCP-specific UDP encaps > > (2) do one generic UDP encaps that can be used with both > > (3) do neither (don't do any sort of UDP encaps for SCTP and DCCP) > > 1 or 2. However, SCTP can go hang. It's a protocol in search of a > problem, IMO. > > I have looked at using DCCP three different times, but I wind up adding > a few tweaks to my home-grown poor-man's DCCP-like system. Every time I > implement yet another game with timely UDP hole-punched NAT packets, I > cry that I can't use DCCP. > > DCCP would probably displace every game library's custom-brewed NAT > punching network code if you gave it a proper UDP encap. If you want > DCCP uptake, there's your target market. > > It would be even better if you could implement DCCP with UDP encap with > the baseline UDP networking facilities of Java. A whole bunch of > Android developers would grab that. > > While it would be nice for applications to talk DCCP directly to one > another, the reality is that UDP encapsulation is the only way DCCP will > ever get any significant uptake. > > -a > > > > >
